CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0058-1.txt

Differences between 1.7 and version 1.8
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0058-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0058-1.txt	2016/10/04 04:47:55	1.7
+++ ai12s/ai12-0058-1.txt	2016/10/05 22:49:41	1.8
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard B.5(19)                                16-10-02    AI12-0058-1/03
+!standard B.5(19)                                16-10-04    AI12-0058-1/04
 !standard B.5(21)
 !standard B.5(31)
 !standard B.5(33)
@@ -11,7 +11,9 @@
 !subject The Fortran Annex needs updating to support Fortran 2008
 !summary
 
-** Summary of actual changes.
+Update obsolete references and remove implementation device that is considered
+to be bad practice from the Fortran annex, and add better support for double
+precision complex arithmetic.
 
 !question
 
@@ -920,3 +922,131 @@
 the parallel AI, which is too big to fix -- but let's not persist that format).
 
 ****************************************************************
+
+From: Brad Moore
+Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016  11:43 PM
+
+...
+> You forgot to update the summary; it says "** Summary of actual 
+> changes.", which doesn't appear to be a real summary. ;-)
+
+How about;
+
+"Update obsolete references and remove implementation device that is
+considered to be bad practice from the Fortran annex, and add better
+support for double precision complex arithmetic."
+
+>> I just updated things that were obviously out of data, or incorrect, 
+>> as suggested by the AI. However, I decided to leave out new 
+>> interfaces to Fortran, with the thought that it would be better to 
+>> cover those in a separate AI.
+>
+> Yes, that makes sense. Get the easier issues dealt with first.
+>
+> I updated the format of the wording (it resembles some awful 
+> formatting from the parallel AI, which is too big to fix -- but let's 
+> not persist that format).
+
+What sort of formatting issues are you seeing, so I can avoid them in the
+future?
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Jeff Cousins
+Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016  1:47 AM
+
+Many thanks Brad for making a start on this.  Once it's polished, would you
+mind if I put it past a Fortran expert?
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016  8:19 AM
+
+And hopefully it will be shared with Van Snyder, our other Fortran expert,
+who is already somewhat involved.
+
+By the way, Brad, did you start with the work that Van Synder had already
+done?  If not, that might be my fault.  He sent me something a long time ago,
+which I had presumed had been shared with the whole ARG, but perhaps not.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Brad Moore
+Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016  10:08 AM
+
+It would definitely be worthwhile to have Van Snyder, and any other Fortran
+experts review the changes. I carefully reviewed all of Van Snyder's comments
+which were captured in the appendix and the existing AI. His comments were
+extremely helpful, as his comments and suggestions made it quite easy for me
+to produce the submitted AI.
+
+The changes I made were low hanging fruit that updated existing interfaces to
+Fortran. We'd really want to have someone from WG5 look at our work, if and
+when we start introducing newer interfaces to the Annex, such as OO features
+or pointers and storage pools.
+
+It was interesting also to brush up on my Fortran as I attempted to
+refamiliarize myself with the language. It was interesting to see that Ada
+shares some design features with Fortran in some areas, for instance being
+able to name parameters at the call site, and I see similarities with
+allocation, private parts, type extension, storage management.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016  1:58 PM
+
+> And hopefully it will be shared with Van Snyder, our other Fortran 
+> expert, who is already somewhat involved.
+
+I, of course, sent it to Van as soon as I started working on it yesterday. I
+asked for comments before the upcoming meeting (both to give him a deadline
+and also so we have them before any discussion).
+
+There's a reason that I get paid the big bucks!!! :-)
+
+I'll send him the revised version this afternoon (as soon as I do it).
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016  5:43 PM
+
+...
+> What sort of formatting issues are you seeing, so I can avoid them in 
+> the future?
+
+* Paragraph numbers not following the AI style guide: a space before the '(',
+  not "AARM" before AARM paragraph numbers;
+* Change instructions not following one of the usual formats:
+    Modify <paragraph>:
+       <text with marked changes>
+
+    Replace <paragraph>
+       <old text>
+    with
+       <new text>
+
+    Append to <paragraph>:
+       <text>
+
+* As suggested by the above, usually (but not always), the RM text is indented
+  a bit. And it *never* has quote marks around it unless it appears in some
+  other text (generally, only in the question or discussion).
+* Some of the text lines exceed 80 characters, which caused the text I got to
+  get ragged. (I'm not sure if a tool was doing that on my end or if the
+  original was funky; Notepad couldn't display the original versions [and I
+  can't get Outlook to let me use an alternative reader] so I had to process
+  them to read them.)
+
+I probably would have let one of these go, but there were enough issues that
+it made more sense to just clean it up.
+
+(It's much like Tucker and the inevitable double space after a period. We
+decided long ago that there would only be a single space after a period, and
+I had to retrain myself that way. Tuck never got that memo, and I decide to
+change his text mainly if there is something else wrong with it. Else I could
+be doing that all week...)
+
+***************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent